[Bug 719854] Review Request: rubygem-xmlparser-0.6.81-1 - Ruby bindings to the Expat XML parsing library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jul 9 21:02:57 UTC 2011
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719854
--- Comment #6 from Ulrich Schwickerath <ulrich.schwickerath at cern.ch> 2011-07-09 17:02:57 EDT ---
Hi, Steve,
thanks for the comments.
ad 1/ Obviously, expat is needed. I've added a a build dependency on
expat-devel, and an install dependency on expat. That should solve this
problem.
ad 2/ I think you are wrong here ... Nothing is being downloaded, and if I
follow what you suggest, it bombs in fact out:
-bash-4.1$ rpmbuild -bi rubygem-xmlparser.spec
Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Fp4pk7
+ umask 022
+ cd /afs/cern.ch/user/u/uschwick/rpm/BUILD
+ LANG=C
+ export LANG
+ unset DISPLAY
+ cd /afs/cern.ch/user/u/uschwick/rpm/BUILD
+ rm -rf rubygem-xmlparser-0.6.81
+ /bin/mkdir -p rubygem-xmlparser-0.6.81
+ cd rubygem-xmlparser-0.6.81
+ /bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w .
+ exit 0
Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gbzH0c
+ umask 022
+ cd /afs/cern.ch/user/u/uschwick/rpm/BUILD
+ cd rubygem-xmlparser-0.6.81
+ LANG=C
+ export LANG
+ unset DISPLAY
+ mkdir -p ./usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8
++ pwd
+ gem install -V --local --install-dir
/afs/cern.ch/user/u/uschwick/rpm/BUILD/rubygem-xmlparser-0.6.81//usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8
--no-rdoc --no-ri --force xmlparser-0.6.81.gem
ERROR: Could not find a valid gem 'xmlparser-0.6.81.gem' (>= 0) in any
repository
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gbzH0c (%build)
What I have been doing is strictly following the procedures, and if you check
the link you sent in the previous comment you can see that they are actually
using SOURCE0 in the install step of the gem, just as I did and as it is
described in the instructions.
I've checked at least 10 other gems as well, and they all do it this way.
AFAIK I roll back to what I had in my first rpm.
ad 3) From the dependencies of the required packages (checking them with -q
--provides) both ways seem to be technically possible. So it's not wrong, it's
rather a matter of taste or policy. I've changed it anyway as you requested.
So, here's the result of the mock run:
-bash-4.1$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --rebuild
./rubygem-xmlparser-0.6.81-3.el6.src.rpm
INFO: mock.py version 1.1.11 starting...
State Changed: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
State Changed: start
INFO: Start(./rubygem-xmlparser-0.6.81-3.el6.src.rpm)
Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64)
State Changed: lock buildroot
State Changed: clean
INFO: chroot (/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64) unlocked and deleted
State Changed: unlock buildroot
State Changed: init
State Changed: lock buildroot
Mock Version: 1.1.11
INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.11
INFO: enabled root cache
State Changed: unpacking root cache
INFO: enabled yum cache
State Changed: cleaning yum metadata
INFO: enabled ccache
State Changed: running yum
State Changed: unlock buildroot
State Changed: setup
State Changed: build
INFO: Done(./rubygem-xmlparser-0.6.81-3.el6.src.rpm)
Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 0 minutes 22 seconds
INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result
State Changed: end
Created packages:
-rw-rw-r--. 1 uschwick c3 12658 Jul 9 22:51 build.log
-rw-rw-r--. 1 uschwick c3 18756 Jul 9 22:51 root.log
-rw-rw-r--. 1 uschwick mock 92331 Jul 9 22:51
rubygem-xmlparser-0.6.81-3.fc16.src.rpm
-rw-rw-r--. 1 uschwick mock 169108 Jul 9 22:51
rubygem-xmlparser-0.6.81-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm
-rw-rw-r--. 1 uschwick mock 46288 Jul 9 22:51
rubygem-xmlparser-debuginfo-0.6.81-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm
-rw-rw-r--. 1 uschwick c3 422 Jul 9 22:51 state.log
New packages:
http://uschwick.web.cern.ch/uschwick/software/rubygem-xmlparser.spec
http://uschwick.web.cern.ch/uschwick/software/rubygem-xmlparser-0.6.81-3.el6.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list